'redshift'

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
303vegas
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:55 am
Location: Rochdale, england

'redshift'

Unread post by 303vegas » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:30 am

hello people.

just been 'thinking' about yer so-called red shift and i don't know if this is a common idea but it occured to me that it could be more of a product of collision/non-collision than mere movement alone.
wavelengths copy.jpg
as you can see in the diagram it would seem to me that the u-v light is more likely to interact with particles and such due to its frequency making it 'denser' and therefore over time it would become more scattered and diffuse (background radiation/echo from the big bang anyone?)

also, if there is a comparison with sound then light may be similar in that low frequencies tend to travel further.
love from lancashire!

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: 'redshift'

Unread post by Sparky » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:18 am

Rummage through these...

comparisons to sound?...consider the gamma ray frequency...
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

User avatar
303vegas
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:55 am
Location: Rochdale, england

Re: 'redshift'

Unread post by 303vegas » Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:12 am

doesn't mean that much to me 9too much info,) can you be a bit more specific?

ta.
love from lancashire!

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: 'redshift'

Unread post by Sparky » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:51 am

Sorry to overwhelm you. Try this one thread: The "redshift" debate

Specifically, I don't trust redshift as an indicator of a definite distance. Otherwise, I just look at what other's have found and what is being said about it.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

User avatar
303vegas
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:55 am
Location: Rochdale, england

Re: 'redshift'

Unread post by 303vegas » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:10 am

still quite technical but i think i get the gist. i would seem to me that if redshift were to be an indication of distance/speed then all galaxies would have to have the same brightness? in the same way that if we were to assess the speed of two boy-racers via the dopler effect it would be more accurate to have the same volume of musik 'umch-ing' out of their respecitve stereos. if the volumes were diferent would it make it less accurate?
love from lancashire!

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: 'redshift'

Unread post by Sparky » Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:36 am

f redshift were to be an indication of distance/speed then all galaxies would have to have the same brightness?
I don't follow how you arrived at that. It is assumed that the universe is expanding. Redshift has nothing to do with brightness. It is the measure ofspectral lines.

You were correct that collisions could cause redshift. I think that is called the tired light theory. An overview.

There is experimental data that indicates that strong or persistent magnetic fields produce redshift.

There is observational data that suggests that there is an intrinsic redshift with each source.
There may be gravitational redshift.

That's about all i know. It quickly gets way to complicated for me to follow.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

jtb
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: 'redshift'

Unread post by jtb » Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:57 am

303vegas wrote:just been 'thinking' about yer so-called red shift and i don't know if this is a common idea but it occured to me that it could be more of a product of collision/non-collision than mere movement alone.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/u12l2c.cfm

The Electromagnetic Theory (Guess) of Light

The density of objects absorbing and reemitting light and the density of light would both affect redshift.

According to the Electromagnetic Theory of Light, light is not visible until it is absorbed by an object and reemitted. When we hit the light switch in a dark room, the reemitted light from the bulb is absorbed by an object in the room and again reemitted. Some of the reemitted frequencies are in the visible spectrum, and we recognize the object as a chair. We know that the light is reemitted in all directions (diffused) because everyone in the room can simultaneously see the chair.

The reemitted light from the source in outer space is continually reemitted as it is absorbed and again reemitted repeatedly by particles it encounters on its journey to Earth. The resonant frequency of the particle absorbing the light and the resonant frequency of the light determine the frequency of light reemitted. In other words, varying densities of particles encountered in different areas of space affect the frequency of light received here on Earth.
jtb

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: 'redshift'

Unread post by Goldminer » Tue Dec 25, 2012 11:41 am

jtb wrote:According to the Electromagnetic Theory of Light, light is not visible until it is absorbed by an object and re-emitted. When we hit the light switch in a dark room, the re-emitted light from the bulb is absorbed by an object in the room and again re-emitted. Some of the re-emitted frequencies are in the visible spectrum, and we recognize the object as a chair. We know that the light is re-emitted in all directions (diffused) because everyone in the room can simultaneously see the chair.
Actually the light bulb emits "new" radiation. It converts electrical energy into heat and light. White light is a "spectrum" of many frequencies from infrared to borderline ultraviolet, depending on the bulb. A frosted bulb diffuses the light as it leaves the bulb, an un-frosted bulb doesn't so much, which is why the shadows from the un-frosted bulb seem more harsh. As the incoherent light from either type of bulb or even florescent fixture, bounce around the room the light becomes even more diffuse.

The hard part of understanding vision is keeping in mind what Webo keeps saying: "Light is what appears on my retina," which is sorta to what you allude, jtb, with this sentence: "According to the Electromagnetic Theory of Light, light is not visible until it is absorbed by an object and re-emitted," only it doesn't have to be "readmitted."

What Webo leaves out is how the light waves reach the retina, silver nitrate emulsion, or CCD! My point is that nothing is ever seen until the light waves interact with the electrons surrounding molecules and atoms, which then cause tiny electrical signals activating your nerves.

Because the atmosphere is full of tiny particles, people assume light can be seen as it travels along. Actually we see the light reflected from these particles, which as you say are "re-emitted," or reflected. Go to the pet store and obtain a laser pointer. You can "see" the beam faintly from the side, but this is just diffuse, reflected light. The laser beam does not produce much diffuse light because it is coherent, collomated light. They are really cheap, found in the pet toys section. Shine one on a Stop sign at night and see what you get. Make sure no one is approaching the intersection though.

The other thing to remember is that light waves "travel" about a foot per nanosecond, which is really fast! (a nanosecond is a billionth of a second.)

Back on topic: red shift shifts the entire spectrum. A red-shifted cosmic object may actually look blue, however looking at the spectral lines, as Sparky suggests, reveals that the atomic and molecular lines are shifted.

Doppler shifting works two ways: approaching objects project blue-shifted spectrum, receding objects produce red shifting. Halton Arp discovered intrinsic red shift in some cosmic objects, which are obviously not approaching or receding at any great speed. The question for how this red shift is produced is open for finding a logical physical process. The idea that the Universe is expanding at ever greater acceleration is also put to rest by his discovery.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

jtb
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: 'redshift'

Unread post by jtb » Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 am

Thanks for expanding, G.

I thought that electrically radiated photons emitted from the bulb had to touch something to vibrate in the visible spectrum. I think what you are saying is that the light source itself is emitting frequencies in the visible spectrum. Let me know if I am understanding correctly.

I use the term reemitted because the physics link I posted uses that term rather than reflected. They state that when light touches an object it is absorbed and the object then reemits light at different frequencies, some of which are in the visible spectrum. Light matching the resonant frequency of the object is absorbed permanently as heat.

I didn’t consider your point that the vast distance to stars results in collomated light.

My understanding of doppler redshift is that as a light source is moving away from a stationary point, the number of photons (and frequency) reaching that point decrease with every time frame, resulting in a constant decrease in frequency. If the light source is accelerating, the decrease in frequency is accelerated. ???????

I guess I don’t understand spectral lines.

Happy New Year!
jtb

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: 'redshift'

Unread post by Goldminer » Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:27 pm

jtb wrote:Thanks for expanding, G.

I thought that electrically radiated photons emitted from the bulb had to touch something to vibrate in the visible spectrum. I think what you are saying is that the light source itself is emitting frequencies in the visible spectrum. Let me know if I am understanding correctly.
Yes, except there is no difference between "electrically radiated photons emitted from the bulb" and light emitted from a fire, for instance. All light is caused by transitions of electrons around atoms and molecules, or speeding electrons in the case of scintillation. Using that theory, radio waves wouldn't be caused by electrons moving up and down wires, but just transitioning in unison right where they are. (Just musing to myself)
jtb wrote:I use the term re-emitted because the physics link I posted uses that term rather than reflected. They state that when light touches an object it is absorbed and the object then re-emits light at different frequencies, some of which are in the visible spectrum. Light matching the resonant frequency of the object is absorbed permanently as heat.
All radiation can be absorbed and partially re-emitted, and/or reflected. Sometimes it is re-emitted at different frequencies, as in when ultraviolet light is fluoresced into visible light. The spectroscope reveals both absorption and emission lines. Sometimes the colors of objects we see are caused by the object absorbing certain wave lengths and sometimes they actively emit certain wavelengths when stimulated. The subject is worth studying more than one page of info on the web.
jtb wrote:I didn’t consider your point that the vast distance to stars results in collimated light.
My point was that laser light is usually collimated, not that stars emit collimated light, but apparently some do.
jtb wrote:My understanding of Doppler redshift is that as a light source is moving away from a stationary point, the number of photons (and frequency) reaching that point decrease with every time frame, resulting in a constant decrease in frequency. If the light source is accelerating, the decrease in frequency is accelerated. ???????
Velocity means moving along at a continuous speed. A constant stable Doppler shift implies a constant speed. Acceleration implies an increasing or decreasing speed. Decreasing or increasing Doppler shift (changing shift over time) implies acceleration. The Doppler shift doesn't happen at the emission point, it happens at the reception of the light. Several observers will see different shifts depending upon their relative motion to the same source.
jtb wrote:I guess I don’t understand spectral lines.
Well then, time for more research, eh?
jtb wrote:Happy New Year!
jtb
[/quote]
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

jtb
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: 'redshift'

Unread post by jtb » Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:23 pm

G, Have you read anything by Walter Russell? If so, your opinion please. I am in the process of reading his "The Secret of Light". A little strange, but he sure makes you think.
jtb

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests